Math of Insects

Probability is for the future. It becomes irrelevant the moment an actual thing happens. It is a gaslight to try to apply it retrospectively, since whatever happened, happened. A pretty good analogy for this whole event might be Malaysia Air flight 370. In isolation, air travel is about as safe a means of transportation as has ever been invented. Airplanes simply do not crash, statistically. You, random person in the world, never have to worry about the plane you are on going down, because statistically speaking, you will never die in a plane crash and neither will anyone you know. Every time you get on an airplane, you have a virtually zero probability of it crashing and you dying. But that airplane (flt370) was in the sky, and then it wasn't. It and everyone on it were never seen again. Some time later, some small remnants of the plane but not the people were found on earth. Statistically speaking, that airplane simply could not have crashed, and the people on it could not have died in a plane crash. But the raw facts--it was in the sky, then it wasn't, then it was never seen again, and some time later some remnants of it were found--suggest a specific and single outcome, regardless of statistics. Those raw facts--was in the sky, then wasn't, then was never seen again, and some time later some remnants were found but no people--exactly describe the DB Cooper situation. It doesn't matter how "safe" skydiving is in isolation, as a matter of probability. We live in the future and have access to real events. In the future (now), he was in the sky, then wasn't, and was never seen again, and some time later some remnants associated with him were found. If we didn't have an investment in our belief in his survival, these facts would lead to the exact same conclusions as that of Malaysia 370.

It doesn’t matter. I’ve shared what I know, and so have you. Thanks for your perspective. Best to you.

This is not a contest I have any interest in being in. Just keep in mind the difference in clothing/protective gear between a skydiver and a regular person, and you’ll understand that there is room in this discussion for both experiences/outcomes. Best to you.

That’s not quite what I am saying, though. I was pushing back against the idea that nothing being found meant that he couldn’t have died out there. It’s the subsequent 50 years of nothing ELSE surfacing, that makes it more and more likely that the last place he was seen, was the last place he was. I think this exchange has run its course, though. Everyone’s position is pretty clear. I respect the brainpower represented here and appreciate the perspectives. Thanks for engaging on it.

I’m not arguing just to argue, and will politely back out of this particular exchange. The contentious back and forths here are a detriment, IMO, and kept me from posting here for a very long time. Best to you.

As I mentioned to FJ, we don't need statistics, because we live in the future. It may also be be rare to die in a car crash on the way to the corner store, but that doesn't mean anything to the person it happens to. I find the "statistical" element of that argument uncompelling. While it's true that some cases go unsolved forever, it is infinitely more true that things go missing in the woods and are never found. Since the last place he was, was heading into the woods, and years later some of his stuff was found there, I think any presumptions have to start with him never leaving there. Look at the difficulty people are having finding a famous actor who disappeared on a hike last week. If anyone should be locatable, you'd think it would be him. A much broader truth, axiomatic among LE, is that sooner or later everyone talks and everyone's caught. The exceptions are notable exactly for this reason. Add that to the natural order of things in the woods and I think the presumption has to remain that he either never left there, or else maybe tried something else shortly after and died or was caught in the commission of it. The thing is, if there had been tantalizing clues to the contrary over the years, then rejecting the "obvious" would make some sense. But the fact is that since the money find there has been no indication that this person lived. In order to get him "alive," some pretty fanciful scenarios have to be painted. I personally keep wanting to climb on board with any of them, but can't make any of them more elegant than the obvious.

With respect, it's not balderdash, nor us the situation you're describing "usual." It's possible, and is one of the states a body might be found in, depending on other factors. But it's not more likely than a far worse state. You are describing the skinny end of a bell curve, but characterizing it as the bell. It's one thing to say "I've seen situations where this didn't happen." It's another entirely to present any other situation as balderdash. I can assure you, it is very much not. As for whether he would "be laying there easily recognizable as a body" etc., people keep forgetting: whatever might have been true that night or the next day, would cease to be true within days. Animals would finish off any organic matter that was left, whether it was in "your" state or "mine." They would not take any care in disposing of anything wrapped over or around that matter. It would be torn apart and scattered. If this happened in an area with a lot of underbrush, that stuff would very easily never be found.

Not really. This is counter-intuitive and fortunately most people haven't had to consider any of this. But...water will kill you just as dead as concrete. Sand, mud, grass--it's no different. It's not about whether the surface you hit is soft, as it is about the density of what's under it. The energy has to go somewhere. It isn't going downward into the surface of the earth, which means it has to go upward. Drop a water balloon from an airplane onto a kid's sandbox, and the result will not be a water-balloon-sized indentation in the sandbox, no matter how soft the surface is. It will be a broken water balloon, every time. You are right, with objects that might absorb the energy--tree branches or forest canopy--the equation changes. Some people even survive those jumps/falls, miraculously. But now we're back to talking about longshots. Most of what would be hit there, would be earth. Plenty of skydivers have died this way, it's just a small percentage compared to those who have jumped successfully. I agree with all that as stated. I don't have a "died in the jump" theory, I'm just saying the raw facts would suggest someone disappeared forever that day or shortly after, and the only reason we resist that conclusion is because it sucks as an end to this story. As for whether it happened from landing or anything else, I don't personally have a position on that. I just think it's not *unlikely* for the way he died or disappeared, to have been from a jump issue of one kind or another, since it's not like that's the world's safest endeavor. Or maybe he broke his legs and starved to death. Or maybe he walked through the wrong person's back yard on the way out. Or maybe he was Hahnemann and lost the money this time to had to try to get it next time. The facts removed from Cooper--someone takes a risky jump from a plane in bad weather, is never seen again, and years later some of his stuff is found in the general area--tell a pretty straightforward tale. It's just an annoying one.

Of all the things related to this case, the one I most wish I wasn't able to say I know something about, is this one. It turns out it's the one thing I have some "expertise" on. Without going into too much detail, there just wouldn't be much to find. The best reference point I can give is when David Letterman used to chuck stuff off a 5-story tower. Remember that almost none of it landed with a "thud," like in the movies. In fact, the whole point of that schtick was to watch what actually happened to the stuff. Human bodies are essentially water balloons. There's not much holding us together. An impact in a car at 40mph is plenty enough to kill us. What happens to us after a fall at terminal velocity is not pretty, and doesn't leave much over. It's not like in the movies. I see the "auger" statement made here; that is not how physics works. We are the water balloon, the earth is the brick wall. That energy has to go somewhere. It goes into the water balloon. It is not the slightest bit unimaginable that this happened under some brush, and by the time the spring or summer came around, anything organic was eaten by animals and anything else was covered over by debris. The point is, a body not being found does not in any way mean one didn't fall there. The more rare outcome would be to find one.

I see that last scenario (the ride) as fanciful. Where's the guy who gave the ride then? Now TWO people have kept that completely silent for all those years? It seems like a non-starter to me--possible only in the way that "all things are possible." I find the parachute data (percentage of chutes that ever fail, etc) uncompelling for this case. It may have been informative that night or the day after, but we live in the future, when not a single trace of the parachutist has ever been seen or heard from again, except some money in the same region he jumped into. The very site we're on has an entire thread for injuries and fatalities. It's not as rare as the data make it sound when quoted in isolation. His conditions were far from ideal. The abstract facts are: he was last seen/known jumping into woods (in bad weather), and was never seen again. Years later some of his belongings were found in the same woods. If it were anyone but Cooper, we'd have no real trouble decoding what happened. But we have something invested in his survival, so we perhaps put more weight into certain elements than we otherwise would. And if his chute didn't open, the ugly truth is that there wouldn't be much body to find. I know the problem with this is the missing persons aspect, but I find that far easier to surmount than the question of what he did or didn't do next, since this one failed. Just went back to PTA meetings and Saturday catch with the kids? That doesn't match the rest of the venture. IMO, if he didn't die, he also didn't last long after this, either because he died during the "next one" or was caught trying. But I still think the connect-the-dots lead to never leaving the woods, until something arises that shows otherwise. I keep trying not to end up there, but can't make anything associated with him surviving, seem more likely than him not.

Honestly, current barely matters. Stuff ends up along shorelines all the time. Everything you find there, started FAR away from there. The burial theory is ridiculous IMO. Every attempt at it falls apart under the slightest bit of logical examination. It is the farthest-fetched way to explain the existence of something along a riverbank in the woods. If it leads to any conclusions at all, the most prominent would be 1) Cooper died, or 2) Dead or alive, Cooper landed without the money. There's a more distant 3) Maybe some fell out of the bag or plane on the way down. 2) and 3) would strongly suggest the need to commit another reckless act in order to get the money the hijacker just risked his own life and threatened others' over, so unless some criminal whose career ended shortly after the hijacking proves to have been Cooper (an argument for Hahnemann), it still most strongly suggests option 1, which would be a failed venture all around. It's just the least sexy of the options.

Too much is said with too much confidence about the Tena Bar money. IMO the diatoms paper only obscured things further. Some stuff went missing in the woods. Years later, some of it was found along the banks of a river. That is not surprising at all, and is only interesting because we know what we think is the origin of this particular stuff. But the river is basically MADE of stuff that came from everywhere. We just don't know it because it doesn't strike us as odd, and we have no way of pinpointing where it came from. Yeah, if it leads back to a place that might yield more of it, or other answers, that would be cool. I hope that happens. But there's nothing inherent in it being found in the river, that says anything else of use, IMO. We just happen to be able to ID this bit of detritus, as opposed to all the other bits. Some kid once found the bronze head of a Roman statue in a river where no Roman settlements had been. Stuff happens in nature, and none of it is linear in any helpful way. Maybe it will END UP being helpful, but there's nothing informative about its existence itself, in isolation, IMO.

I can overlook some confusion around the rubber band/bank strap issue. But mixing up the Three Stooges and Abbot and Costello? Unforgivable.

Cooper told Tina: 'I have a grudge, but not with your airlines' Does this imply 'some other airline' ? Maybe people should shift from tie particles Ti alloys, to pilots with a grudge against some airline in 1971 ? I actually think that's pretty well-explored as an option, though, yes? I also think that someone in the position he was in, one way or another--desperate enough to sacrifice his own life and potentially end dozens of others--would clearly feel some kind of resigned vengeance or anger. If someone offered that word as an option, I could see it being easy enough to agree with, only taking issue with the "airline" part. I'd be curious to know Carr or Himmy's take on that element.

Once as a joke I suggested that Cooper might have stayed in the woods and become the source of all modern Bigfoot sightings. Now I think I was on to something!

Worst non-female suspect in history. The family is owed an apology.

She was a 22-year-old girl who had just been in a terrorist event. Her big sister was married to an FBI agent. It is completely understandable that they would have done anything they knew to do to protect her or take care of her. It doesn't have to mean she is hiding anything. If they hadn't helped, the same argument could be made that "even her FBI-agent brother-in-law knew she was guilty, he stayed far away from her." Going farther, if he, by virtue of his job, knew she was in trouble, and helped her avoid detection, his career would have been over. Is there anything to indicate he was crooked and reckless? A letter to a friend that says "I may be going away for awhile" or something...now we're in different waters. Big sister and her husband who knows the best ways to keep his little sister-in-law out of harm's way? That seems unremarkable.

Just throwing this out there, since it tangentially applies to this Tina discussion, though it more directly relates to some statements made in the FB group, which I stopped participating in. The term used when people seem "off" or evasive, and we conclude some kind of guilt, is "demeanor evidence." Our criminal court system and even the 6th Amendment are built least partially around this concept. And now we've added factors like "microexpressions" to supposedly reveal some inner truth or turmoil. It's the "They're hiding something" thing. But it turns out we suck at this. Study after study has shown that 1) microexpressions and other post-event patterns reveal dick, and 2) we are exactly as likely to be wrong when interpreting demeanor, as right. Worse, cops and other professional interrogators are exactly as bad as everyone else; they are right just about 50% of the time, which is the rate of chance. And worse yet, they are more confident that they are right than everyone else, so sometimes the results can be disastrous. I'm not talking about actions--doing a Google search for how to dispose of a 115-pound woman's body after your 115-pound wife suddenly disappears for example. I'm talking about those "intangibles" that make us think someone is guilty. We turn out to be very bad at correctly interpreting those, and our skill is completely unrelated to our confidence around it.

Again, or she just didn't want to be involved in this matter any more, and thought it was easier just to say she didn't see him than to have to relive it over and over. We live here in the future. Just imagine, for a moment, being a 22-year-old young woman sitting in an airplane where you have no idea, second to second, if or when it will blow up and end your life. She had no reason to believe death wasn't going to come in a fiery blast at any moment--and that series of "moments" lasted for hours. She was in a terrorist incident. If at then-23 she decides it's easier just to say she didn't see anything than to have to keep reliving it, that would not be the slightest bit surprising or out of the ordinary. It's certainly worth checking to see if something else is there, but it's important to remember that the "something else" would be the surprising thing, not very real fact of having survived a terrorist threat to her young life.

Understood. For whatever it's worth, I personally can describe many, many things in great detail about the day I keep referring to, and yet can't tell you a thing about the face of the guy who saved us, beyond the most general elements (race, rough age range, very rough height). I can tell you his name, and I've since read his story around the day, but if you interviewed me even a couple of days later I wouldn't have been able to tell you much more than that. As I say, as of now he could be the guy drinking coffee next to me and I wouldn't know. Flip side, if you talked to me that night I would have been able to be very specific. That's why I caution against using logic-brain to decode trauma brain. Some stuff imprints, some doesn't, and the pattern is random and weird-looking sometimes. Even the money hunt is completely explainable to me, and familiar to me based on something I did too. We don't find it easy to process what is called "single-blow" trauma; we fire off in all directions and it's all a mess up there. I can see her sort of instinctively wanting to close that open door, so to speak. With the usual caveat that you might be right and correct. I just find everything you're mentioning completely explainable and not at all surprising, given the trauma of a 22-year-old woman being told that for all she knows, at any moment the plane she is on will explode and she will die. That state of lizard-brain jumpiness does crazy things to the normal coding we do. /horse

It's certainly possible that she was, I just think we need to be aware that "hiding something" might have meant something different than what we think. Maybe she was nice to him and regretted it. Maybe she felt she'd failed in her new job somehow. Maybe she realized there was a point where she had a chance to stop it all and didn't. Maybe she realized she couldn't be of more help to the FBI, and wished she could. Maybe he said "I'm going to jump now, don't tell anyone," and she didn't tell anyone. Maybe she accepted $5800 from Cooper and later threw it out the open door in a burst of regret. Or maybe she felt traumatized and confused and didn't have any model for how to proceed next (which I can vouch is a thing). I'm not saying you're off-base for the suggestions you're making, just that I think in general we diminish the role trauma plays in people's responses. MANY things can look like non-responsiveness, and even when they are C'ing someone's A, it's often for a very different reason than we think from the outside.

Fair enough, though I wasn’t suggesting a choice, just degrees of likelihood. Someone not wanting to appear contentious or wrong would also be “hiding something.” It sounds like you mean she was hiding a particular thing. Whatever that thing is is not directly suggested by any quirk of her behavior, IMO, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other elements you’re not mentioning that do.

She was 22, and female, in the world of 1971. It is just as likely she either came to doubt herself or wanted to avoid conflict or ridicule, as that she is part of some conspiracy or willful plot. Not only that, she's had 50 years to come clean about something that her 22-year-old self would have done out of bad judgment. Your conclusion may be right, but I don't think the information leads there in any direct or reasonable way. She was a human for 22 years before this and for another 50 so far after it. Anything that occurred is far more likely to be a quirk of human nature than some kind of plot.

I'll just add...I have what I would call "more than vivid" memories of the event that I needed saving from. I can tell you very minute details about many parts of it, and certainly remember the "order" things happened in--when, where, how, what. I can tell you about smells and sounds there too. There's another set of memories that I remember the fact of, but would probably get some details wrong about. If you "reminded" me, my memory would probably end up being whatever you told me. If I met anyone who went through it with me in real time, I wouldn't know them today. Maybe one person, because she was cute and hot and we dated a couple of times afterward. No one else. On the other hand, I clearly remember and know well every single person I went through a trauma-recovery group afterward. That was "thinking" me. Trauma brain is not logical. It's literally, by definition, what happens "pre-logic" in the signal flow. From the "outside" these inconsistencies may seem contrived. But they are real and have no ulterior motive connected to them. It's just where and how in the brain certain elements are coded.

You may be right, but I can't say the road from "story changing" to "hiding something" is as direct as this makes it sound. Just because some deception involves someone changing a story, doesn't mean that all changed stories are deceptive. It seems illogical to admit the very thing you were intending to hide, and then later decide to go back and hide it. You can't unring a bell.... I've told this privately, but my life was literally saved by a first-responder. I was not alone (there were probably 30 of us), but I directly interacted with him over the course of probably two hours. And yet, if he were sitting next to me right now, I would not know it. I know his name and some general elements of how he looked. If you showed me 10 pictures of people within that general outline, and there wasn't anything that stood out about any of those 10 (like a huge schnozz or blond hair and big ears), I'd be as likely to say that any of them were or could be the guy. I might also, in retrospect, have to consider that maybe I didn't get as good a look at him as I thought--even though I know for a fact I did. But I'd have to wonder even for myself, not being able to really pinpoint this person I interacted with, if maybe I just didn't see him as well as I thought. (Which, again, I did.) In times of trauma, we do not code memory the same way. This cannot be discounted (and frequently is in this case). It's risky to compare someone in what was clearly a trauma state, to someone in their right mind, and IMO unwarranted to say that her inconsistencies are deception, any more than mine would be.